Monday, March 3, 2014

Do we really need another war?

A while back, I made a modest proposal.

It said that political leaders who have direct say in military matters should be veterans.  That way, they might get to know what it's like to pull the bodies of their dead friends from burning vehicles or somesuch and thereby be reluctant to commit men and women to harm's way without good reason.  Now, as we watch with anticipation and no small amount of dread the news coming out of Ukraine, I'm reminded of what made me say that.

On CNN's State of the Union yesterday, Sen. Lindsey Graham basically slandered the President, saying that Graham "rolls his eyes" whenever Obama speaks to "thugs and dictators," calling him weak and indecisive on this matter of Russia and the Ukraine and that Obama needs to "do something."

That's right.  Show 'em we're still men.  Show 'em we got teeth.  Cowboy up and commence the chants of "USA, USA."

I think this has taken me all the way back to third grade.  There's no other way to say it and I would be saying it no matter what party affiliation the source of statement had.  Why is it that when something like this happens, the immediate reaction from the right is to say "we've got to show we're tough and mean business"?  I think I speak for the majority of Americans when I say that I am war weary.  Hell, I'm beyond that.  I'm sick of war.  The only people who would still willingly engage in a new military action at this point are either psychopaths or profiting from defense contracts. I realize that it has to be done sometimes, especially if there is direct threat to citizenry or home territory.  As far as I can tell from the situation in Ukraine, that isn't the case.

The fact is, senator, the President is "doing something." What you are calling weakness in him is actually the mark of someone intelligent and measured in their response to a situation. He is acting in concert with the other nations of NATO and the rest of the world.  He is prepared to impose economic sanctions against Russia and will work with other nations to further isolate Russia.

But wait.  That's not good enough you say?  Obama didn't bomb Syria into a firestorm and now you think he may pass up yet another opportunity to get out the toys and play?  Well then let's take a realistic look at what our military options are in the Ukraine against Russia...a nation with over 8,000 nuclear warheads.  Actually, Anderson Cooper does a pretty good job of examining at this.  Take a look at the video.

Wow.  Doesn't sound like a whole helluva lot, does it?  At least not without starting World War III...which I'd really rather no one did.  Yes, I really must add that caveat.  If we are to respond in any manner, it will require diplomacy and coalition-building with other nations.  That is something our President clearly understands.

Too bad his predecessor, "the decider," didn't.

Follow me on Twitter: @Jntweets


  1. On FB, Colette said: "Well said Jon.
    I agree with everything...except....this President does use drones...and I am completely against that."

    Drones are here to stay I'm afraid. As is war as you correctly point out.

  2. On FB, FrankR said: "Russia is a continental power quite capable of projecting force; we are separated by an ocean. Like it or not, the Russians got there first with the most. While the Russians are violating national sovereignty, I'm afraid all our options ore non-military in nature."

  3. And as always, money might be a bigger motivator:


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.